Search for: "In re Doe, b. 11/17/94"
Results 1 - 20
of 131
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2014, 8:10 am
What does a Mandate and Remand for Re-Sentencing from the Second Circuit really mean? [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 2:04 pm
” Thus, unlike Rule 10b-5(b), Section 11(a) does prohibit pure omissions (at least in registration statements). [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 4:59 am
§ 157(b)(2)(I). [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
” Id.at *10-11. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 6:39 am
On 17 October 2016, the appellant filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fee on the same date. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 8:49 am
” Id.5 ¶11 Ryan also challenges the court’s dismissal of the Petition for failure to use dispute resolution procedures, contending the court erred by sua sponte determining that his failure to use dispute resolution procedures justified dismissal of the Petition. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 12:02 pm
§ 42.23(b). [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
The decisionThe applicant, France.com Inc, submitted the following four questions to the CJEU (para 17): ‘(i) In light of [Article] 8(2) [now Article 8(2) of Regulation 2017/1001] and Article 41(1) [now Article 46(1) of Regulation 2017/1001] of [Regulation No 207/2009] and Rule 15(2)(b) and Rule 17 of [Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community… [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 11:33 am
See, e.g., In re Charon, 94 B.R. 403, 405–406 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1988). [read post]
22 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
The class argued that the company’s failure to disclose information regarding the defects’ impact on future financial performance violated Item 303 and constituted a material omission actionable under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.[10] The Ninth Circuit, affirming the lower court’s decision, found that Item 303 does not create a duty to disclose under Section 10(b), and that Section 10(b) liability “must be separately shown” pursuant… [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 2:58 pm
And HB20 does so in a way that will promote more speech, not less. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 11:33 pm
P. 9(b); Dkt. 6 at 11. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 11:44 pm
The payment of the appeal fee was effected with the date of 17 March 2015. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 9:20 am
A (Audit Instructions), Docket Entry 17. [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 12:34 am
W 11/89, OJ 1993, 225, point 4.1; W 6/97, point 6.3; T 173/06, point 8; T 1888/09, point 2.1). [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 4:06 pm
Development of serologic tests allowed definitive diagnosis of hepatitis B. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
(see point [11] of the reasons)3. [read post]
26 May 2017, 1:39 pm
No. 94–1476, p. 55 (1976). [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 6:08 am
Are you sure you're not interested ...Eric Small (UPG) August 1 at 3:45 PMwe could do 2–4m at 92–94 if that is the cheapest you have offered or will offer.Eric Small August 6 at 9:17 AM:WE NEED TO NAIL THIS DOWN ! [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am
The appellant's arguments, as far as they are relevant to the present decision, may be summarised as follows:The idea behind Rule 71(3) EPC was that an applicant could re-enter the examination proceedings if it did not agree with the proposed claims. [read post]
